SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION .J .:.:.".:-- <--fit::. ' "': ". ',:. - -.' .' . -.;..:,::..:..... . -. .. '. .._..::-: ". . ".-:;, . '.<':"<"..."".<. lk ..: "., - . .. . "". ." - . . . ,".". .. .. . . . $.:;.;...,,"..; - . . . . .' . .. :' '. . . ...... "qi;" ...:id! ..ë I Ji LITTLE CAMERAS EVERYWHERE A discussion with surveillance expert William Staples I Even with the increasing sophistication of crime and criminals, gut instincts like observation and deduction remain the primary tools of law enforcement. Electronic surveillance is an evolving tool that has the ability to refine those instincts, but it also has the potential to blur them. Like any weapon, surveillance when used correctly can tip the balance in a crusade against crime, but when abused, its side effects can bear a higher price than any society is willing to pay. Providing some expert testimony on the topic of surveillance is William Staples, sociology professor at the University of Kansas and author of "Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in Postmodern Life" (Rowman & Littlefield). I Q. How prevalent is police and government surveillance? A. Typically the government uses surveillance in two ways. The first targets people under investigation after a footwork inquiry. This may involve video, listening devices, and other technologies aimed at a particular suspect. The other form of surveillance does not specify a person. The technology could be a thermal imaging device searching for pot growers or video cameras that continually scan the streets. Another example is facial-recognition software used at the Super Bowl. Q. Is there anything wrong with this trend? A. Our justice system is based on the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" and "probable cause." When you start monitoring people en masse, you're on a fishing expedition. Q. Are there rules for government surveillance? A The laws vary so much, we end up with a hodgepodge. ill South Dakota, for example, DNA samples are routinely taken at the time of arrest. In Washington, D.C. the Metropolitan Police Department has set up an extensive public surveillance system without consulting the citizens and their representatives on the District CounciL But for the FBI and its well-known Carnivore system, a court must conclude that there's probable cause before they can start tracking E-mails. Q. So, then, is Big Brother really watching? A Not likel)'. It's more probable that private organizations are. I use the term "Tiny Brothers'> --organizations and individuals trying to keep us in line-to describe this trend. Q. Are these "Tiny Brothers" like security cameras in the convenience store? A. They can be cameras, drug-testing kits, or "E-Z Pass" highway scanners. Tiny Brothers just sit there and soak up information like data sponges. Q. Does the government ever use information gathered from these Tiny Brothers? A. They have, and I think it should be of concern when the police demands results of an on-the-job drug test, videotapes from private security cameras, and so on. These private organizations are then acting as a surrogate investigative arm with less judicial oversight or legal restrictions. Q. But some surveillance is good, isn't it? A. There are times when community needs outweigh personal privacy issues. A shopping mall security camera catches somebody kidnapping a child, and everyone thinks, "Thank goodness for the camera!" But how many times does that happen? Those things aren)t being debated. Q. What's the biggest surveillance trend in the last few years? A. I'd say it's the proliferation of surveillance devices in the hands of ordinary citizens. Parents are using phone-taping devices and drug testing kits to watch over their kids; wireless video cameras are being sold for watching baby sitters. The line between voyeurism and surveillance is very thin. Q. The technology has gotten so miniaturized it's unobtrusive: cameras disguised as brooches or hidden in teddy bears (to keep track of the babysitter). A. They're getting smaller, cheaper, and more efficient. Think about it: when Supreme Court Justices Brandeis and Warren championed the "right to be left alone" over a hundred years ago, they were concerned about the telephone and the telegraph. We now live in a world where you can buy facia] recognition software for $29.95. Q. How justified is surveillance? A I think it's justifìed only to the extent that authorities-both public and private-make the case that a problem exists. Surveillance may be prudent when drug trafficking, employee theft, or terrorism is involved. But as we turn more and more to these devices for what I call everyday surveillance, I think we'll need better laws, more regulation, and judicial oversight. Q. No one seems particularly worried about everyday surveillance. A. They're more insidious than Big Brother. Big Brother is a jack- boot on the neck. But these tiny devices-because they're so small and seemingly innocuous-don't generate much resistance. Q. What can individuals do to deter surveillance? A. There are some practical things. Protect your personal information. Don't use your Social Security number, even if businesses ask for it. If you use the Internet, learn about security functions and don't do business with companies without a privacy policy. And think before you support a new surveillance practice in your own community. What's used on others can be used on you. . E o u u u tv) ..... co >- t- U U tv) N 15 >- V1 t :::I o U V1 o Õ ..c. c..